-
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
Junker posted this in a reply to another post:
Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.
This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it.
Where is this experiment that confirms this?
It MUST show that Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.
The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see.
In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.
-
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp perform the experiment, document all logistics and results, then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!
-
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp perform the experiment, document all logistics and results, then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!
You've learned a lot from the master of ransom note style formatting I see.
It MUST show that Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.
The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see.
In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. This is incompatible with their view... yet it happens. And not just with ships, but also with cities and the sun and moon. Some FEers, adhere to Rowbotham's explanation, that this is a trick of visual perspective, and that the missing part of the figure can be restored using a telescope. However, this has never been observed, and indeed, when such a boat is viewed through a telescope, the magnified image does not have it's hull restored, but there is still a portion hidden behind the visual horizon. This is a falsification of the proposed explanation, and so the hypothesis must be modified or abandoned. One proposed modification is that on the water, waves and swells cause the obstruction, but to my knowledge this has never been measured. If you have, or know where I can find such a demonstration, I would love to see it.
I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
I engaged in this conversation (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg99461#msg99461) but you never continued it.
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. This is incompatible with their view... yet it happens. And not just with ships, but also with cities and the sun and moon. Some FEers, adhere to Rowbotham's explanation, that this is a trick of visual perspective, and that the missing part of the figure can be restored using a telescope. However, this has never been observed, and indeed, when such a boat is viewed through a telescope, the magnified image does not have it's hull restored, but there is still a portion hidden behind the visual horizon. This is a falsification of the proposed explanation, and so the hypothesis must be modified or abandoned. One proposed modification is that on the water, waves and swells cause the obstruction, but to my knowledge this has never been measured. If you have, or know where I can find such a demonstration, I would love to see it.
I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
I engaged in this conversation (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg99461#msg99461) but you never continued it.
No doubt it has never been continued since this question of the horizon and the ship disappearing over the horizon is one of the weakest points in flat earth fallacies.
(1) At sea, on a normal day with no other atmospheric effects, the horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet, the distance to the horizon can be estimated, and the flat earth fallacy that the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance is fallacious.
(2) Objects, such as ships, land and cities that disappear over the horizon can not be restored with a telescope. This is just comon every day knowledge.
Any person who has ever been to sea considers these as the most absurd of flat earth fallacies and fantasies from their common every day observations and experiences, such as those engaged in lookout or navigation duties at sea.
-
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp perform the experiment, document all logistics and results, then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!
No thanks. No matter how many times I do the experiment and get a negative result, there is no way to prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist. However, it only takes one positive result to prove that the phenomenon DOES exist. Which is why we are asking for some proof positive. Surely, *you have some proof positive stashed somewhere if you are convinced that the phenomenon is real?
* by "you" I mean flat-earthers in general, since you seem to get super annoyed at me making any assumptions about you specifically.
Also, touche on the formatting, although, you forgot the <marquee> tag. Rabinoz: your posts tend to look like a website from the nineties.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
I also answered this: (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg98971#msg98971)
1. The horizon line passes in FRONT of the ship.
2. A significant portion of the ship that is normally above water appears to be behind the horizon line.
It just needs to be big enough so that we can accurately and precisely measure point 2. You kind of have to use your own judgement, but when presenting evidence, you should try to err on the side of too big. The more detail the better.
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.
How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.
And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).
As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.
The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.
-
https://youtu.be/wIAVaYlnJ2A
Tall structures indeed, and a malfunctioning telescope.
... Right?
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.
How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.
Ships certainly get hidden:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Diamond%20Princess%202%20leaving%20Harbour_zpsoryggtwy.jpg)
Diamond Princess leaving Harbour | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Diamond%20Princess%205%20more%20over%20horizon_zps0rbx6wtu.jpg)
Diamond Princess partly over horizon | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Diamond%20Princess%207%20framed%20for%20overlay_zpsbpodfstv.jpg)
Diamond Princess well over horizon (framed for overlay) | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Diamond%20Princess%208%20as%207%20original%20ship%20overlayed_zpsjab4t9lj.jpg)
Diamond Princess original ship overlayed on prev picture |
In my opinion this ship is clearly partly hidden.
This ship is sinking behind the visual horizon and is not too small to see. The sun does it too, every day.
And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).
It does? Why does the sun go behind the horizon?
As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.
The expected list at approximately 50 miles away is something less than 1 degree. Miniscule.
The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.
Why is it a different matter? It is an object that appears to disappear behind the visual horizon.
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.
How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.
And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).
As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.
The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.
If I should be pardoned for the use of the word "suggestion"..... My suggestion would be for the flat earthers to talk to some real sailors about this subject.....civilians and /or enlisted men or officers in the navy. They could set you straight. But knowing the flat earth mind set , they would probably consider them as liars since they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy. They probably wouldn't even believe it even if they went to sea and saw it demonstrated.
-
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.
How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.
And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).
As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.
The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.
As for the sun and moon it is equally obvious that you can not "restore with a telescope " a sunset or a moonset once the sun or moon has set over the horizon. This is one of the easiest tests to performed. Try it yourself during some sunset or moonset.
As for the "tilt" it has been ponted out so many times that it is so small that it is imperceptible. Just consider that you are dealing with a globe that is 25,00 miles in circumference.
You would think that flat earthers had never been to sea ?
-
I have sailed many places. I have seen a lot of ships travel towards and away from me. I have sailed away and towards land. I have used tables telling how far I should be able to see stuff from different heights above the water.
I have only restored sight of a ship one time when it left my view. It was a cruise liner. I was on the deck and when I climbed the mast to look for reefs and shallow water I was able to see it again.
I have estimated distance using tables and math telling me how far away I should be able to see something. Based on the Earth being round and the results where accurate.
I was never able to see more of something over the horizon by using binoculars or a telescope. The only thing that happened was I saw it more clearly.
It seems to me it would be rather easy to make a video that proves that it is only a matter of perspective that makes it look like a ship sinks or rises. The videos I have seen involve a small boat and/or clearly shows the horizon behind the ship/boat.
-
I have sailed many places. I have seen a lot of ships travel towards and away from me. I have sailed away and towards land. I have used tables telling how far I should be able to see stuff from different heights above the water.
I have only restored sight of a ship one time when it left my view. It was a cruise liner. I was on the deck and when I climbed the mast to look for reefs and shallow water I was able to see it again.
I have estimated distance using tables and math telling me how far away I should be able to see something. Based on the Earth being round and the results where accurate.
I was never able to see more of something over the horizon by using binoculars or a telescope. The only thing that happened was I saw it more clearly.
It seems to me it would be rather easy to make a video that proves that it is only a matter of perspective that makes it look like a ship sinks or rises. The videos I have seen involve a small boat and/or clearly shows the horizon behind the ship/boat.
Your experiences are certainly like a lot of those that we have all experienced if we have ever had the opportunity of going to sea.
What amazes me - and I don't think I'm alone -Is how anyone thought up this idea of the horizon and the ship over the horizon in the first place since it is so weird and unreal.
Is this just one more thought from Rowbotham's writings ? Maybe his idea of the horizon came from a foggy night at sea ? And restoring the ship over the horizon with a telescope ? Maybe some flat earther can explain Rowbotham's delusions ?
-
l
There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!
You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp perform the experiment, document all logistics and results, then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!
No thanks. No matter how many times I do the experiment and get a negative result, there is no way to prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist. However, it only takes one positive result to prove that the phenomenon DOES exist. Which is why we are asking for some proof positive. Surely, *you have some proof positive stashed somewhere if you are convinced that the phenomenon is real?
* by "you" I mean flat-earthers in general, since you seem to get super annoyed at me making any assumptions about you specifically.
Also, touche on the formatting, although, you forgot the <marquee> tag. Rabinoz: your posts tend to look like a website from the nineties.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
I also answered this: (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg98971#msg98971)
1. The horizon line passes in FRONT of the ship.
2. A significant portion of the ship that is normally above water appears to be behind the horizon line.
It just needs to be big enough so that we can accurately and precisely measure point 2. You kind of have to use your own judgement, but when presenting evidence, you should try to err on the side of too big. The more detail the better.
I think the burden of proof lies with the "flat earthers."
As "round earthers" we KNOW that our facts about the horizon, etc. are TRUE. They have been known and observed for ages.
It is up to the "flat earthers" to prove that ours are false and theirs are true.
-
In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.
The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.
I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.
If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as "disappearing over the horizon?"
Exactly!
-
I think the burden of proof lies with the "flat earthers."
As "round earthers" we KNOW that our facts about the horizon, etc. are TRUE. They have been known and observed for ages.
It is up to the "flat earthers" to prove that ours are false and theirs are true.
I agree that the burden of proof lies with flat-earthers in this case, but I completely disagree with your reasoning. We don't need preferential treatment just because we "know" we are right. Many flat-earthers are just as convinced that they are right.
The burden of proof is generally on the person making the claim that something exists. In this case, flat-earthers are making the claim that "a ship that has appeared to sink behind the horizon can be restored using a telescope". The burden is on them to provide proof-positive that this phenomenon exists. It would be ridiculous to ask for proof that it doesn't exist, because proving the non-existence of something is often impossible.
Likewise, when round-earthers make the claim "a ship can sink behind the horizon", the burden is on round-earthers to provide evidence. And they have. Rabinoz has already posted pictures supporting that claim in this thread. If that isn't enough, I can post many more pictures to support that claim on request.
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
-
The whole "flat earth" idea is completely ridiculous anyway. LOL..
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
None of which can be proved today.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Tom if you are right it would be very easy to demonstrate.
You do not live too far away from the Port of LA. One of the busiest ports in the world with plenty of large ships coming and going.
It should be well within most peoples means to conduct the experiment of trying to bring part of a ship back into view once it passes the horizon.
To prove you are right you must show:
1. The horizon clearly in front of the ship when it disappears from view.
2. Using higher magnification you can see the ship again.
Continually referring people to a source that regularly omits important information like observer height, distances, and target height is not proof. How can someone go recreate the experiment and verify the observations and conclusions. By your own standards the source you cite is not adequate evidence. You are taking Rowbathan's word for it and have not witnessed it yourself or seen pictures or videos demonstrating it.
I assume I have more experience and cehave witnessed the hull down effect more than most people. I could be wrong because I do not have data, but since I live on my boat, currently in one of the busiest ports in the world I think it is safe to assume.
I have only once been able to restore a ship once it went beyond the horizon out of view. As I pointed out above it was when I climbed the mast. If you ever spent weeks crossing an ocean single handed you would realize how something like another ship coming into sight becomes the entertainment and the vsomething to do. The same is true when you see the first signs of land. I have spent hours on each of these different occasions observing ships using my naked eye, binoculars and telescopes.
Every time the ship/land/object appeared from the top up and disappeared from the bottom up. I usually switch between my naked eye, binos and a telescope. My many observations tell me I can not bring something back into view once it passes the horizon. The only thing that happens when I use higher magnification is I am able to make out more detail.
When you conduct observations I would suggest trying to observe a cruiseliner at night. They are very well lit and allows you to see it with the naked eye from further distances. I suggest this because I have observed a cruiseliner at night and can not think of anything that could demonstrate you may be wrong better. Approaching a cities at night, like LA, from the sea also has me firmly believing you are wrong.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
So you have to dredge up 1885 documentation without any photos!
I do not see any "evidence", just "Parallax" saying something happens because of the "Law of Perspective", which he grossly misinterprets.
The "Law of Perspective" says no more that that objects appear to get smaller as they get further and goes on to say quite correctly
Law of Perspective
In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
FIG. 71.
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
That is in reasonable agreement with current thoughts on resolution of the eye, etc.
Even bits like this I find logical: Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig74.jpg)
Fig. 74.
disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.
Note carefully here the circle stays a circle, but the white part just gets too small to resolve - no great problem, though we might see a blurred greyish bit at the bottom!
Where I do start having a big disagreement is where "Parallax" just simply states all his conclusions from this. If a receding train be observed on a long, straight, and horizontal portion of railway, the bottom of the last carriage will seem to gradually get nearer to the rails, until at about the distance of two miles the line of rail and the bottom of the carriage will seem to come together, as shown in fig. 79.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig79.jpg)
Fig. 79.
Perspective simply reduces the apparent size of objects in proportion to the distance, when that apparent size gets below the limit of the eye's resolving power, the object is no longer visible. In the diagram above we have a completely unjustified premature earlier reduction in size. A more correct diagram would be: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160624%20-%20Loco%20Perspective_zpsvg2hu19y.jpg)
where the wheels don't artificially "burrow" into the ground. Normal real perspective will make those smaller parts "disappear" in good time.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
I think (" IMHO " ) Rowbotham's ideas might be defined as " This is just my idea of how I think that things would be if the earth was flat."
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
k
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Tom if you are right it would be very easy to demonstrate.
You do not live too far away from the Port of LA. One of the busiest ports in the world with plenty of large ships coming and going.
It should be well within most peoples means to conduct the experiment of trying to bring part of a ship back into view once it passes the horizon.
To prove you are right you must show:
1. The horizon clearly in front of the ship when it disappears from view.
2. Using higher magnification you can see the ship again.
Continually referring people to a source that regularly omits important information like observer height, distances, and target height is not proof. How can someone go recreate the experiment and verify the observations and conclusions. By your own standards the source you cite is not adequate evidence. You are taking Rowbathan's word for it and have not witnessed it yourself or seen pictures or videos demonstrating it.
I assume I have more experience and cehave witnessed the hull down effect more than most people. I could be wrong because I do not have data, but since I live on my boat, currently in one of the busiest ports in the world I think it is safe to assume.
I have only once been able to restore a ship once it went beyond the horizon out of view. As I pointed out above it was when I climbed the mast. If you ever spent weeks crossing an ocean single handed you would realize how something like another ship coming into sight becomes the entertainment and the vsomething to do. The same is true when you see the first signs of land. I have spent hours on each of these different occasions observing ships using my naked eye, binoculars and telescopes.
Every time the ship/land/object appeared from the top up and disappeared from the bottom up. I usually switch between my naked eye, binos and a telescope. My many observations tell me I can not bring something back into view once it passes the horizon. The only thing that happens when I use higher magnification is I am able to make out more detail.
When you conduct observations I would suggest trying to observe a cruiseliner at night. They are very well lit and allows you to see it with the naked eye from further distances. I suggest this because I have observed a cruiseliner at night and can not think of anything that could demonstrate you may be wrong better. Approaching a cities at night, like LA, from the sea also has me firmly believing you are wrong.
We have just returned from a vacation trip to California.
If Tom lives near the port of LA, a deck on the Queen Mary Hotel at Long Beach or the Santa Monica Pier would be good vantage points to observe the horizon and ships passing over the horizon.
I have also observed a city at night - Honolulu at night from a ship that was either approaching or departing to or from Honolulu.
My experiences are much like Woody's so I am in agreement with Woody.
Also , today's ships are much larger than they were in Rowbotham's times and can be seen much longer before they become too small to be seen. Compare the size of today's container ships, cruise liners or aircraft carriers with the size of the sailing ships shown in Rowbotham's drawings.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
-
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
None of the experiments prove this particular phenomenon. At least not from the pages you told me to read.
please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Still waiting...
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
You make the statements:
"Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe."
"Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them."
All I see is a lot of statements by Rowbotham, but I guess a lot of things are "in the eye of the beholder"!
That is why in real science we do not accept the evidence of one person or group, but expect it to be verified and if it is a measurement to improve its accuracy!
Just look at the measurement of the "Universal Gravitational Constant", where Henry Cavendish made the first measurement (yes, I know he was "weighing the earth", the result was "G"), but there have probably been a hundred experiments improving on his figure, even to the present day.
Or measuring (or estimating) the distance to the sun. Copernicus estimated around 9,000,000 miles (I think), but it wasn't untill sometime after Cook's and other expeditions to measure the "Transit of Venus" that reasonably accurate values were found.
And the list goes on.
But by contrast the "Flat Earth Movement" seems to take the results of one person (who may have been well intentioned, but was still one person) and never bothers to verify the results. Even on the distance to the sun. Rowbotham is the only Flat Earther I know to have actually done any experimental work to measure the distance to the sun. If the earth were flat his method was reasonable (though his baseline was far too short), but his equipment was completly inadequate and his result of 700 miles is vastly different to the current Flat Earth figure of "a bit over" 3,000 miles. If Rowbotham's method is repeated using accurate angles (derived from GLOBE sun information) the results agree with the other "estimates" of sun heights. But I repeat Rowbotham is the only Flat Earther I know to have actually done any experimental work on this.
So where are these "Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them."? You undoubtedly know "The Earth is not a Globe" far better than I.
So I believe that I should be the one to ask quite sincerely "Are you in denial?"
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
Can you copy and paste them here? I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
Can you copy and paste them here? I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.
A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.
But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.
-
A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place.
A few of us have read EnaG and found it to be deeply flawed. It does not really have many experimental results in it either, especially not in the section being discussed, but mostly proposals for experiments or anecdotes about experiments; not much in the way of data sets. This is not an outright criticism, but calling on EnaG to deliver empirical results is not the best course.
-
A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.
I haven't read the entire book, but I have read the chapters relevant to this discussion (plus a few others). I'll just state this bluntly: Rowbotham is an idiot. His logic is extremely poor, and he demonstrates lots of bias in the interpretation of his observations/experiments. I can back up these statements with specific examples if you want, although it should probably be done in a new thread so we don't derail this one.
Reading the entire book would be extremely tedious. However, I'll continue reading the chapters directly related to the topic at hand.
Given that you are such an expert in this literature, perhaps you can help Tom out? I am still waiting for one of these "numerous experiments" that I am "in denial" about. So far none have been presented.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.
A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
Can you copy and paste them here? I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.
A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.
But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.
Here is the problem. I started reading things like the 100 proof and earth is not a globe. For the Hundred Protofs I made it to about #20 and was able to realize either with logic or personal experience it was wrong. For earht is not a globe it was basically the same thing or I noticed it failed to offer anything that could be reproduced and give consistent results.
Why would I continue to read it? It uses flawed logic and nothing I have read that I can recreate to verify what it is telling me it is true.
I have seen FE's claim that RE's just accept things without looking into them and personal investigation. Well when I do it with what I have read offered as evidence in the wiki, 100 proofs and Eartht not a Globe the things that I could verify stated in the sources proved wrong.
A couple examples:
Tom Bishop made a mistake when calculating the distance in the Bishop experiment. He was off by 10 miles. The location where he stated he was at makes it very questionable the telescope was only 20" above the water.
100 proofs states engineers/architects do not take curvature into account. Which is true. There is no need to take it into account when building something like a road unless it is built in one piece then placed on the surface. If you build something like a road it is self correcting as you build.
For earth not a globe everything I read lacked important details like observer height, target distance and height. It just had sketches and logical fallacies.
I will say if you think is especially convincing and you link it here or tell me the page number I will read it. I am open to being proven wrong, just have not seen any convincing evidence that contradicts what I have observed.
I have sailed many places, used celestial navigation, used tables telling how far I can see, watch ships approach and go away from me, seen different stars in the northern and southern hemispheres, been able to see things that others could not simply because I was higher than they were.
If I read something and read 3 or more things I know are wrong from personal experience I tend to think it is a waste of time and written by someone who does not what they are talking about.
-
The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.
Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.
If, as some one commented , you live near the port of Los Angeles ....San Pedro, Santa Monica, etc....it should be easy to go some point and just look out to sea and see whether or not there is or is not a distinct horizon which should coincide with round or flat earth. Also with the many large ships entering and departing , it should be easy to see if you can restore a ship - to full view...hull to mast - whether you can do this or not which should coincide with round or flat earth. This should be done on a clear sunny day with no atmoshperic conditions to interfere. Been there, done that.
-
A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.
But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.
And how much of "Earth Not a Globe" have you read? You have a copy of course, l have.
So maybe you could explain how Rowbotham manages to prove that the sun's height cannot be more than 700 miles as in: If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
I guess you can find that bit in your copy and explain how it is that now they say the sun is a "bit over 3,000 miles".
And Flat Earthers complain that we "change the distance between the earth and the sun".
You are so critical of all the Globe "theories, what about looking at what the Flat Earthers really "believe?
The bit above is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more that is nothing more than guesswork.
-
While you're at it, explain why "the earth floats on the ocean" and "the sea isn't salty" doesn't immediately discredit Rowbotham as an authority on anything about the natural world?
-
While you're at it, explain why "the earth floats on the ocean" and "the sea isn't salty" doesn't immediately discredit Rowbotham as an authority on anything about the natural world?
Actually, he doesn't say the sea isn't salty. He says it isn't saturated with salt. For the most part, this is true.
-
I think you're giving him too much credit. Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore" But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough. Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:
A) the sea floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above a lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189)
B) far south = perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
D) sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.
-
I think you're giving him too much credit. Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore" But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough. Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:
A) the sea floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above a lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189)
B) far south = perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
D) sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.
I, too, have just about had my filll of Rowbotham - and for that matter - this entire website- for now, but these few additional comments.:
(1) Moonlight supports combustion.
(2) If flat earthers would just go to the nearest point where they can see the sea clearly and honestly report or photograph what they saw as far as the horizon is concerned.
It is not necessary to go to sea to do this.
(3) If flat earthers would just observe. a ship going over the horizon and becoming completely invisible and report honestly if they can or can not restore the ship to full visibility with a telescope.
Even if flat earthers would simply perform these experiments for themselves, they would probably be in complete denial even if they found all these flat earth ideas are completely false.......So maybe it's just a hopeless case ?
-
I think you're giving him too much credit. Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore" But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough. Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:
A) the sea floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above a lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189)
B) far south = perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
D) sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.
I honestly do not know whether Rowbotham is knowingly dishonest or unforgivably (for someone assuming so much authority) ignorant!
He states In the Cook's Strait Almanack for 1848, it is said:
"At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st, sun rises 4 h. 31 m., and sets at 7 h. 29 m., the day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 7 h. 29 m., and sets at 4 h. 31 m., the day being 9 hours and 2 minutes. In England the longest day is 16 hours 34 minutes, and the shortest day is 7 hours 45 minutes. Thus the longest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 36 minutes shorter than the longest day in England; and the shortest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 17 minutes longer than the shortest day in England."
From: Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham CHAPTER VIII, p. 121 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
He compares the sunrise, sunset times of Wellington, NZ (at 41.286°S and 174.776°E) with an unstated part of "England", say London (at 51.507°N and 0.128°W). London is more than 10° further North than Wellington is South - of course it gets longer summer days and shorter winter days than Wellington.
Below are the sunrise and sunset times and day lengths for Wellington, London and Barcelona, at almost the same North Latitude as Wellington is South.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160627%20-%20Sunrise-Sunset%20Wellington%20Barcelona%20and%20London_zpsqyfkrkar.png)
Where we see that the day length for the summer solstice in Wellington was 15 hours 10 minutes in 2015 which compares well with Cooks 14 hours 58 minutes and almost exactly the same as Barcelona's of 15 hours 10 minutes.
Rowbotham's day length for "England" is 16 hours 34 minutes, compares well to the http://SunEarthTools (http://www.sunearthtools.com/) day length of 16 hours 38 minutes. Anyone claiming to be an authority on these matters must know how sunrise and sunset time vary with latitude!
But is Rowbotham simply ignorant, being deceptive? Either way he completely discredited as a source of reliable information.
-
It is just one more of my "IMHO"'s but maybe Rowbotham just made up all these ideas just for the sake of them.
Since the genreral population of England was far less literate than that of today, and since he was reported to be an excellent speaker, he found he could make money by pesenting his lectures.
Since the general population was none the wiser for it, they might be impressed with this, thinking that he was some kind of a genius in presenting such things as "Earth Not A Globe" that they just bought into his talks without question.
So maybe he wasn't any better or worse than the old snake oil salesman of that time.
But if you read about some of the others of Rowbotham's activities, there is cause to question his motives and character as being a bit devious..
-
It is just one more of my "IMHO"'s but maybe Rowbotham just made up all these ideas just for the sake of them.
Since the genreral population of England was far less literate than that of today, and since he was reported to be an excellent speaker, he found he could make money by pesenting his lectures.
Since the general population was none the wiser for it, they might be impressed with this, thinking that he was some kind of a genius in presenting such things as "Earth Not A Globe" that they just bought into his talks without question.
So maybe he wasn't any better or worse than the old snake oil salesman of that time.
But if you read about some of the others of Rowbotham's activities, there is cause to question his motives and character as being a bit devious..
I did try to read some of the other parts, but I just couldn't stomach it - I guess I'll have another go, but it's very similar to debunking jeranism videos, the completely incorrect information and explanations of the Globe just pile up and up!
-
It is just one more of my "IMHO"'s but maybe Rowbotham just made up all these ideas just for the sake of them.
Since the genreral population of England was far less literate than that of today, and since he was reported to be an excellent speaker, he found he could make money by pesenting his lectures.
Since the general population was none the wiser for it, they might be impressed with this, thinking that he was some kind of a genius in presenting such things as "Earth Not A Globe" that they just bought into his talks without question.
So maybe he wasn't any better or worse than the old snake oil salesman of that time.
But if you read about some of the others of Rowbotham's activities, there is cause to question his motives and character as being a bit devious..
I did try to read some of the other parts, but I just couldn't stomach it - I guess I'll have another go, but it's very similar to debunking jeranism videos, the completely incorrect information and explanations of the Globe just pile up and up!
[/quote)
I am perhaps guilty of over simplification rather than the deep thinkers on this forum.
But I find - at least to myself - that at least two of the greatest flaws in flat earth so-called "theories" and the easiest to debunk - are the subject at hamd "Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope" and of course just the flat earth definition of the horizon itself.
-
It is just one more of my "IMHO"'s but maybe Rowbotham just made up all these ideas just for the sake of them.
Since the genreral population of England was far less literate than that of today, and since he was reported to be an excellent speaker, he found he could make money by pesenting his lectures.
Since the general population was none the wiser for it, they might be impressed with this, thinking that he was some kind of a genius in presenting such things as "Earth Not A Globe" that they just bought into his talks without question.
So maybe he wasn't any better or worse than the old snake oil salesman of that time.
But if you read about some of the others of Rowbotham's activities, there is cause to question his motives and character as being a bit devious..
Another little bit that is simply a fabrication. Of course not a lot was known of the Antarctic in Rowbotham's time, but to claim these things as facts without that knowledge is simply deceitful!
Earth is no a Globe CHAPTER VIII.
CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, WINTER AND SUMMER; AND THE LONG ALTERNATIONS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS AT THE NORTHERN CENTRE.
The whole of these explanations have reference only to the region between the sun and the northern centre. It is evident that in the great encircling oceans of the south, and the numerous islands and parts of continents, which exist beyond that part of the earth where the sun is vertical, cannot have their days and nights, seasons, &c., precisely like those in the northern region. The north is a centre, and the south is that centre radiated or thrown out to a vast oceanic circumference, terminating in circular walls of ice, which form an impenetrable frozen barrier. Hence the phenomena referred to as existing in the north must be considerably modified in the south, For instance, the north being central, the light of the sun advancing and receding, gives long periods of alternate light and darkness at the actual centre; but in the far south, the sun, even when moving in his outer path, can only throw its light to a certain distance, beyond which there must be perpetual darkness. No evidence exists of there being long periods of light and darkness regularly alternating, as in the north. In the north, in summer-time, when the sun is moving in its inner path, the light shines continually for months together over the central region, and rapidly develops numerous forms of animal and vegetable life.
from Earth is no a Globe CHAPTER VIII. CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, WINTER AND SUMMER (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
Tom you idol has clay feet!
-
Here are two simple ways for FE to prove if the FE beliefs of this"horizon" and "sinking ship" are true. This should settle the question once and for all. But I doubt FE would accept the results anyway..
Go down to the sea shore on a clear, calm day with no unusual atmospheric conditions . You don't even have to go to sea aboard a ship, but you can perform the same experiments aboard a ship, or you can do both. Take a telescope, binoculars and/or a camera with a zoom lens or telescope lens for photographic evidence. But then again , there is the problem that FE does not accept photographs as evidence. Please accept my word if you can that there are days that the sea and sky are perfectly clear with no fog, atmospheric conditions or mirages to interfere with these eperiments.
(1) The horizon
Looking out to sea from the ship or the shore. If all you see in the distance is a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance that should prove the FE statement that there is no horizon to be observed if the earth is flat. Remember, this is on a clear, calm day.....no fog, etc. .
(2) The "sinking ship"
Again looking out to sea from the ship or the shore. Observe a large ship such a container ship, large cruise ship or a large aircraft carrier. When the ship passes out of view if you can restore the ship in its entirety this should prove the FE statement that the earth is flat. It would seem that if you had the proper equipment such as telescopic or zoom lenses, filters and film to eliminate any atmospheric or haze conditions (again you will have to take my word for it that they do exist) the ship would never disappear from view as you increased the magnifying power of the camera, binoculars or telescope, much less ever disappear from view..
These experiments should be performed at low levels of height above the sea.
PS - Perhaps I have erred in using the term "Atmospheric" instead of the FE term of "Atmoplanic" in the above.
Please present the results of these experiments. I have performed them many times myself, but the results of these experiments should come from a FE as evidence and prove of the FE statement that they deal with their belief that the earth is flat from these and other FE beliefs.
-
Omg i found an interesting drawn explains everything. :)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4f6b9309b3.png)
-
This is another way to explain it by "surface tension".
(http://cdn2.buggyandbuddy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/water-drop.jpg)
-
Omg i found an interesting drawn explains everything. :)
We weren't talking to you so I'm putting you on my "lack of respect list"!
Goodbye.
-
Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?
None of the experiments prove this particular phenomenon. At least not from the pages you told me to read.
please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.
Still waiting...
Six days later, still no reply. Like I said, it doesn't exist.
-
If we have photos of the earth showing it is round do FEer's have photos showing the edge and beyond? Where is the edge, by the way? Am I close to it? Are there any countries that abut the edge?
Rob
-
If we have photos of the earth showing it is round do FEer's have photos showing the edge and beyond? Where is the edge, by the way? Am I close to it? Are there any countries that abut the edge?
Rob
You should to see a drawing like this:
(https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg)
There is Antarctica instead of the edge.
-
This is my own work.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/61ad00b88f.png)
-
This is my own work.
So don't nobody try and steal it!!
Seriously though, this ideas of Intikam's is testable, in more ways than one! If this illustration is an accurate representation of the world:
A) We should be able to see ships become hidden as they sail away, but then return to visibility on the far side of the depression in the water, for example when this occurs across a narrow section of ocean between the mainland and a nearby island, or even better, across a large lake.
B) From a ship at sea, the horizon should be higher in the direction nearest land, and lower in the direction to the point farthest from land (or maybe the point above the deepest part of the ocean?) If the effect is strong enough to push to surface of the ocean down far enough to hide things that aren't that far out to sea, it should be within the measurement range of modern optical instruments.
-
If we have photos of the earth showing it is round do FEer's have photos showing the edge and beyond? Where is the edge, by the way? Am I close to it? Are there any countries that abut the edge?
Rob
You should to see a drawing like this:
(https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg)
There is Antarctica instead of the edge.
OK, this is a hypothetical drawing not a photo. I see someone has asked this elsewhere here so I'm going to that thread.
Rob
-
If we have photos of the earth showing it is round do FEer's have photos showing the edge and beyond? Where is the edge, by the way? Am I close to it? Are there any countries that abut the edge?
Rob
You should to see a drawing like this:
(https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg)
There is Antarctica instead of the edge.
OK, this is a hypothetical drawing not a photo. I see someone has asked this elsewhere here so I'm going to that thread.
Rob
I don't know who asked what because some of rounders on my ignore list.
This isn't a photo because there is no photo took the completely earth . The NASA photos are fake. You can find out a working video on my signature.
-
This is my own work.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/61ad00b88f.png)
Makes me wonder how I have seen ships appear from the top down and disappear from the bottom up while I was out at sea.
His drawings suggest I should be able to see further in the middle of the ocean since I will be at the lowest point. Yet the horizon in my experience remains the same distance at the same observer height.
-
Here's the problem, in order for your theory to work a massive amount of people along with information gathered over a significantly broad span of time has to be false and worse, deceptive.
If we accept that premise than we have to accept the premise that there is also a massive amount of dishonesty and deception in the FE community.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In other words you are just as capable of dishonesty as those you accuse of it and if we accept your premise of deception by RE we have to accept FE deception also.
So now you post a hypothetical drawing of a flat earth. Prove it is not a dishonest deception.
And putting several people on ignore is equivalent to sticking ones head in the sand. I never put anyone on ignore because it's the same as cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. We never see other perspectives no matter how much they disagree with our beliefs. Or, my mind is made up, try not to confuse me with facts.
R
-
This is my own work.
So don't nobody try and steal it!!
Seriously though, this ideas of Intikam's is testable, in more ways than one! If this illustration is an accurate representation of the world:
A) We should be able to see ships become hidden as they sail away, but then return to visibility on the far side of the depression in the water, for example when this occurs across a narrow section of ocean between the mainland and a nearby island, or even better, across a large lake.
B) From a ship at sea, the horizon should be higher in the direction nearest land, and lower in the direction to the point farthest from land (or maybe the point above the deepest part of the ocean?) If the effect is strong enough to push to surface of the ocean down far enough to hide things that aren't that far out to sea, it should be within the measurement range of modern optical instruments.
C) The crews of ships/boats might also notice an increase in speed as they head 'downhill' toward the middle of the body of water and a decrease in speed as they head 'uphill' toward land.
-
This is my own work.
So don't nobody try and steal it!!
Seriously though, this ideas of Intikam's is testable, in more ways than one! If this illustration is an accurate representation of the world:
A) We should be able to see ships become hidden as they sail away, but then return to visibility on the far side of the depression in the water, for example when this occurs across a narrow section of ocean between the mainland and a nearby island, or even better, across a large lake.
B) From a ship at sea, the horizon should be higher in the direction nearest land, and lower in the direction to the point farthest from land (or maybe the point above the deepest part of the ocean?) If the effect is strong enough to push to surface of the ocean down far enough to hide things that aren't that far out to sea, it should be within the measurement range of modern optical instruments.
C) The crews of ships/boats might also notice an increase in speed as they head 'downhill' toward the middle of the body of water and a decrease in speed as they head 'uphill' toward land.
From what I have observed from a lot of stuff like this it seems to me that some flat earthers have no sense of reality.
Looking back at my old navy days if this website had been around then the officers and enlisted men would have read it for posts like intikam's to give them something to laugh about every day. Service in the navy does have its negative points but lack of reality is not one of them. It seems a lot of flat earthers have never been to sea....Or they are completely "at sea".
(C) It looks like going across the ocean would be like riding on a roller-coaster ! LOL.
It also looks like....For instance, crossing the Pacific Ocean . When you got to the mid point of the ocean on your journey you would get to that "deepest point in the ocean" and you would be looking up at a huge "wall of water" all around....in front and behind your ship. It would be like "being in a hollow".
But wait a minute....I thought there was no such thing as the horizon on a flat earth as we know it on a round earth - a distinct line where sea and sky meet . But on a flat earth it is "an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance." Intikam's drawing seems to go against this....Or maybe I'm just missing it.
Just about everything that intikam has posted is simply not the way it really is ! LOL
Every time I read some of the stuff from flat earthers like this I am more convinced that there is more truth than fiction in the first line of my signature line. LOL
-
Just about everything that intikam has posted is simply not the way it really is ! LOL
Every time I read some of the stuff from flat earthers like this I am more convinced that there is more truth than fiction in the first line of my signature line. LOL
You could add a bit to your signature.
Go outside, look at a sunrise, see a sunset, the moon and stars in awe and wonder!
"Come to this website for flat earth entertainment
Go to this website for round earth education."
Then I saw İntikam's "Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !" and almost felt sickened! How can any rational person say that - look up!
<< added last line in disgust! >>
-
Omg i found an interesting drawn explains everything. :)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4f6b9309b3.png)
This is... the most amazing thing I've seen this week. I think we should all get together to encourage Initkam to start a Kickstarter making science textbooks. Furthermore, based on the strength of this new science that Initkam has brought forth, we should all begin a letter writing campaign to persuade the future Trump-Palin administration to appoint Initkam as head of the National Science Foundation.